Re: [9fans] an idea

[Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

>>Messages to kernel bits reminds me of Mach somehow. What happened to Mach 
>>was sometimes referred to as "message death".

that was bad.  i might have chosen the 4.2bsd design document.
not messaging but a similar feel of much mechanism more complex
than that it replaces (which is all that anyone ends up using anyway
for some reason).

nevertheless, there have been good message passing systems;
it's just that (perhaps) Mach wasn't one of them.  i admit it was never one of my favourites.

still, to focus on the export aspect is possibly sensible
since that apparently has been surprisingly troublesome all round.
even there, part of the problem i think has been the usual one
of gradually working out what the specification actually was, incrementally.
eventually, one reaches a stage where it all seems quite obvious,
but by that time, so many people have jaundiced opinions about it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2611 bytes --]

From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] an idea
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:51:33 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404261350180.28350-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 rog@vitanuova.com wrote:

> if devices speak in terms of 9p messages, you're talking about a
> stream of 9p messages.  

This part is a tiny bit worrisome for me but I didn't want to bring it up. 
Messages to kernel bits reminds me of Mach somehow. What happened to Mach 
was sometimes referred to as "message death".

ron